What Just Happened to Venus?

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


The Delta Aquarid meteor shower is going on now.

reply to post by habfan1968


Why can't a lens flare last as long as the conditions are right for one. The cameras and objects appear to move relatively slowly across the field of view. Yes, the conditions of the camera do not change quickly.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by habfan1968

 

Why can't a lens flare last as long as the conditions are right for one. The cameras and objects appear to move relatively slowly across the field of view. Yes, the conditions of the camera do not change quickly.

Since you asked, no way that it is a lens flare the video. lens flare in theory could last that long but 3 days is a long time. watching the video it rally does not come across as a lens flare, so it it some kind of ejection from the planet.

reply to post by habfan1968


A lens flare is due to an internal reflection within the optics of a camera. So if the conditions for a lens flare are set up the lens flare does not disappear. It remains until the conditions change. Since the objects in the image do not change quickly, then the lens flare remains over a long period of time.

What's a better statement is that it does not look like a lens flare. You don't think it looks like a lens flare, but it does.

Let's take a look at your suggestion that this is an ejection from Venus. Down at the bottom of the video is the date and time. From that we can see that several days go by. The material moves out from Venus say 1 Venus diameter in 25 hours. It's about 6000km in diameter. That's a speed of 240km per hour. That's pretty slow. Escape velocity is over 10km/s.

If this had been an ejection it would have had to move the diameter of Venus in 600 seconds or 10 minutes. It would have looked instantaneous on the video.

Venus - wikipedia
So no. It can't be an ejection from Venus.

Interesting topic on the venus situation if you believe in Crop Circles:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by stereologist


I also believe it was a lens-flare. I was just playing around with my camera and the sun the other day and had some interesting results that caught me off guard at first!

I could probably post them in a Nibiru thread and really get people going... but I'll be nice.

Yesterday I saw a stunning sun dog that could have been photographed as a "second sun". It was magnificent due to the sharply defined cirrus clouds on the horizon and clear sky in between.

There are many interesting atmospheric effects that are also beautiful. I could have posted a photo here and claimed it was evidence of a "second sun." Instead I'll share an opportunity to learn about the amazing world we live in.

just for all those that say this is lens flare do you know what these cameras are for? It is to see when a solar flare is released and heading towards us so would these cameras be subject to lens flare? I doubt it very much as if there was a solar flare released all would say na it is just lens flare so your reason for it doesn't sound plausable correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think i am.

reply to post by stereologist


Pictures or it didn't happen.

reply to post by vkturbo


Cameras are made to reduce lens flare, but a sufficiently bright source will cause an internal reflection no matter how well the camera is made. Notice that the lens flare occurs when Venus moves to the edge of the image. That is when the internal reflections are visible. Which culprit is the cause? It's the brightest object.

reply to post by stereologist


so how do they tell if theres a solar flare then and not just a supposed lens flare. they are million dollar cameras I don't see them as having lens flare there are made to look at a bright object all day

whats amazing is the fact that the sun also flared at the same time or was that just lens flare lol

reply to post by vkturbo


You can't stop lens flare, but you can attenuate the problem. There are many factors that go into making an instrument. It's a balance between detection and noise. The lens flares are noise. You want to detect the solar flares which are dimmer than the surrounding objects such as the sun and planets. There is a balance to be played here. It's all a game of give and take and finding a useful compromise.

reply to post by vkturbo


You mean the sun flared in a several day period? Hard to believe.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Image artifacts - Internal reflections
Light reflecting inside the telescope optics, and diffracting off edges within the telescopes, can produce some interesting effects. Consider this series of images showing the planet Venus leaving the field of view of the HI1-B telescope between Janary 26-31, 2009. As Venus approaches the edge of the field-of-view, a ring shape is seen apparently coming out of the planet. This is caused by reflections of the bright planet off of the camera barrel. (If you look closely at the full-field version of the January 26, 2009 image above, you'll see a large, faint bubble on the left side of the image, which is also an internal reflection of Venus.) The ring grows progressively larger as time goes by. On January 31, a horizontal streak appears near the position where Venus disappeared. This latter effect is caused by diffraction off of the optical baffles.

well if they are reflections and that is apparently the truth going to make it quite hard to make an argument if they ever is an anomaly in the cameras then isn't it. As all will say it's just lens flare it's nothing else.Ok so all that gets bought forward as evidence from these cameras in future isn't evidence at all is that what i'm hearing? Well I wont worry bout anything that is posted from these cameras anymore.

i can see it being a reflection as i didn't pay attention to the days on the cam i know i was told and no way a burst would be a perfect circle either just wanted to believe it was something but as always it was nothing. still stick by what i just wrote in last post though very easy get out of jail card for anything that doesn't add up.

reply to post by vkturbo


Not sure why you are purposely trying to miss the point here. The issue is not about anomalies. The lens flare artifacts are not anomalies. They are expected problems known in optical systems and have been observed in optical systems as long as people have been building them. A lens flare is a well understood issue. It is not an anomaly.

Every measurement contains two parts: noise and signal. It is important to separate the two or in some cases state that it is not possible to separate the signal from the noise. These cameras are attempting to observe dim objects next to very bright objects. That's not easily done. There is intense radiation in space. There are issues with keeping the cameras properly aimed. I'm sure others can expand on the list of issues that need to be dealt with.

To toss the baby out with the bath water is a rather imprudent action to take. It is far more interesting to learn what is in the images.

reply to post by stereologist


I get what you are saying about lens flare what i'm saying is that it will be hard in future to prove anything as most people that like debunking will go to the lens flare as the reason. Wasn't saying the lens flare was the anomaly was saying other things that might be a real anomaly would be dismissed straight away as flare hope i explained that right. As the link that is shared by someone here also shows the camera where there is something odd and they say it is flare which it is thats all

[edit on 1-8-2010 by vkturbo]

reply to post by vkturbo


Agreed. We have to be careful to toss out interesting observations as noise. These lens flares are noise as are the cosmic ray trails and blooming and the other problems with cameras in the hostile environment of space.

The issue is making people aware of the difficulties of collecting these images. The NASA site describes common noise issues. I'm not sure how to get people to take the time to look these issues up instead of post odd speculations. The interesting objects that come into view are actual objects such as asteroids or comets.

I apologize if I came off a bit harsh. I believe we are in agreement.